Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Maow writes with word that the U.S. Federal Appeals Court has reversed a sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone. According to the decision (PDF), "Regardless of the extent to which Apple may be injured by the sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there is not a sufficient showing that the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement. ...the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus." The ruling also said Apple didn't do a good enough job showing that the allegedly infringing features were "core" to the Nexus's operation. The case centered on what is called "unified search," a method for bringing together search results from multiple places, such as a device's internal memory and the internet at large (U.S. Patent #8,086,604). "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent—not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."

That's certainly possible. This is what happens when you don't have free markets. It becomes profitable to divert some effort into abusing the regulatory systems instead of spending all your time and energy actually producing things.

I don't think Laxori666 was intimating that "The Market" was broken, but rather that our regulatory systems (that would include the Patent system) have shackled it to the extent that it can be more profitable to engage in legal assaults against your competitors than to actually PRODUCE something new for sale.

Now, Apple is clearly doing both, but the fact that the legal avenue is even viable for them to bother pursuing should be of great concern to anyone wishing to see greater vibrancy and energy from the marketplace.

Patents may be monopolies, but how about the alternative? Companies may spend months or years and tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with some new way of doing something. Without patent protection, other companies could then quickly copy the invention, spending a fraction of the time and money, with just a small lag in time to market. What incentive would companies have to innovate? Patents, done right, should protect the inventors at least long enough for them to make back their investment in time and money, giving them the incentive to keep innovating.

In theory, I actually agree with you. In practice, I completely disagree. If patents were used appropriately for truly innovated things and for a short duration (6 months to a few years at most) then it would provide a good incentive to innovate due to the large potential benefits of a short lived monopoly. The detriment of that monopoly could be offset by the societal benefits brought on by increased innovation.

The problem is that none of those things are true. Patents are granted for completely tri

The original purpose of the patent system was to protect say Alexander Graham Bell when he invented the phone from marketing it, having big corporate come in and rip off his idea, cheating him out of a fortune and discouraging him from ever contributing to society ever again. That's backwards progressive. It was also almost a century and a half ago when this was relevant, before global economy became a buzz word, before the computer and internet were invented. We're still using this system and it no long

Well, they also create monopolies. Creative Labs litigated Aureal out of business with bogus patent lawsuits that Aureal won, but the legal cost was too much and Creative effectively killed the competition because they could afford to do it. Didn't even have to worry about antitrust concerns when they bought the assets, since they were already out of business

How is spending billions of dollars buying patents not "legal fees"? It's certainly not R&D. For example, Google could have spent money and come up with a phone on their own (R&D), but they had to buy Motorola in order to not be sued into oblivion by the other phone makers (legal fees).

How is spending billions of dollars buying patents not "legal fees"? It's certainly not R&D. For example, Google could have spent money and come up with a phone on their own (R&D), but they had to buy Motorola in order to not be sued into oblivion by the other phone makers (legal fees).

at the far end, money goes into lawyers' pocket or developers'? It inspires more graduates to be lawyers or developers?

You're the one who's juggling terms, desperately I might add. A patent is not a "legal service" any more than a lease is. And no, all the money most certainly does not go into lawyer's pockets at the far end.

Some small fraction of it does of course, and that fraction is what would be referred to as legal costs, but the money we're discussing went to the selling companies as revenue, and from there, a tiny fraction went to the lawyers, the rest went to marketing, share holders, whatever expenses the company

<snark>Really, Google could avoid paying for any patents and just make a cellular phone?</snark>

Buying patent portfolios is like buying a house instead of renting. Google would obtain those patents either via outright ownership, or they'd rent them. You cannot make a cellular phone which is compatible with modern networks without patent encumbrance of some sort or another.

Purchasing patent portfolios is to R&D what buying a building is to building one. If you need a building and one exists w

You cannot make a cellular phone which is compatible with modern networks without patent encumbrance of some sort or another.

That's precisely my point. But if the patent system didn't exist as it does now, you would be able to, if you could set your engineers to the task of figuring out how modern networks work and how to make something that interoperates with them.

Purchasing patent portfolios is to R&D what buying a building is to building one. If you need a building and one exists which fits your purpose, and your time is better spent in other aspects of your business than the construction of something fitting that purpose, you buy it outright. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The analogy is flawed. When you buy a patent, you don't buy any information or knowledge, let alone anything physical. You merely buy the right to use certain information/knowledge because the legal system is set up such that it is illegal to use it - this even if you

The analogy is flawed. When you buy a patent, you don't buy any information or knowledge, let alone anything physical. You merely buy the right to use certain information/knowledge because the legal system is set up such that it is illegal to use it - this even if you could have come up with it on your own. The analogy would be more accurate if you said "purchasing technology/blueprints/research" instead of "purchasing patents"

OK, fine, his analogy was not perfect. But yours is no better. The perfect analogy would have been leasing a building--not buying anything physical, merely the right to use something.

I am not an economist, so I am not sure what would free markets do in this case. I agree with Synerg1y's point -- the patent system is broken. So if the broken patent system exists, how would your "free markets" be?

Free markets cannot exist while the government distorts them. This isnt about regulation, because regulation does not need to distort the markets.

Market distortions perpetrated by government are often characterized by government money, but that isnt the whole story. The patent system is most certainly a market distortion, which seemed like a beneficial trade-off when it was only manufacturing techniques that were being patented. Clearly its not a free market if you arent free to also do what someone else is succeeding when doing. You shouldn't be guaranteed to succeed, but you should be free to try.

The patent system, as it stands, is a gross violation of liberty. The society does not benefit when information that was naturally (going to be) public information is given exclusive use. Society only benefits in the case where what would have been trade secrets is made public through these government enforced incentives of limited exclusiveness. This kind of would-have-been-a-trade-secret patent is rare these days. Companies like Intel and Global Foundries certainly are involved in that kind of 'good' patent (not exclusively, see instruction set patents), but companies like Apple patent information that would by definition become public through the sale of millions of devices which demonstrate it.

Its about time people stood up for technological liberty. End the 'design' side of the patent system, and reform the 'utility' side of the patent system.

Free markets cannot exist, full stop. For instance, every time a companies actions have negative externalities - costs that affect others who aren't doing business with them - that distorts the market even if there's no government, because it means the free market price of their product doesn't reflect the actual cost. We see this with global warming; in fact that's one reason why libertarians are so keen on insisting that it doesn't exist despite the actual evidence. There's a related problem with (for instance) deep sea fishing called the tragedy of the commons - without government intervention the free market would wipe out fish stocks and drive fishermen into bankrupcy, despite the fact that this makes everyone else worse off.

That's before we even get into the problems with false advertising and food and drug mislabelling, and the consistent inability of the free market to deal with it, or natural monopolies and rent-seeking behaviour, or...

I find it rather amusing to read all this libertarian commentary treating the patent system as some form of "government regulation" as if it were some afterthought tacked on by politicians not as wise as the Founding Fathers.

I find it rather amusing to read all this libertarian commentary treating the patent system as some form of "government regulation" as if it were some afterthought tacked on by politicians not as wise as the Founding Fathers.

The original patents were utility patents, not design patents. You are uninformed and you need to come to terms with that, such as not spitting ignorant bullshit at others thats based completely on incomplete information.

The original patents were utility patents, not design patents. You are uninformed and you need to come to terms with that, such as not spitting ignorant bullshit at others thats based completely on incomplete information.

Ummm... the so called '604 patent that sparked the ban of the Galaxy Nexus is a utility patent. It's a patent about the utility of unified search and spoken results on a smartphone.

My point is that the patent system itself is what makes the market not free. A freer market would be one without the patent system.

How would that market operate? It means companies would no longer be able to make money by coming up with something and preventing other people from doing it (thus enjoying the benefits of a monopoly), but rather, to come up with something which they can make money from even if they have competition. Whenever there is competition in a free market, prices go down while quality go

Apple just released a new iPod, shortly before that iPhone 5, a few months prior iPad3, a few months prior iPhone 4s, a few months prior iPad 2. It looks like they are spending quite a bit of time and energy producing things. So what was your point?

Or it was a shot across Google's bow.If Apple really wanted to hurt Samsung alone, they would have picked the SII instead - it's very close to the same phone (admittedly, it was Samsung's "true" flagship phone as the hardware specs were the same or better). Going after the Nexus was probably nothing more than a two-birds-one-stone scenario, attacking their largest hardware competitor and their largest (only?) OS competitor (and sworn enemy) at the same time.

And it worked, this time at least. Even if they didn't stop Android outright, they were able to slow down its momentum for a short while. It's not a complete victory, but it's enough of one. The real question is, is it going to work again the next time. I hope not. More of these, and they could really kill Android's momentum and ultimately kill Android.

I know, I know, it's blasphemous and wrong, but don't worry! Friend Apple will be by to innovate the Appeals Court, correcting their faulty logic! Then the foul Green Beast will be forever slain, and all the true believers will be welcomed to iHeaven to stand by His side with His holy turtleneck! So don't despair!

I.E.. Apple forfeits some of the bond they posted for PI, up to 96.5 million dollars, maybe more.

This ruling can also put a serious dent in the Apple's victory over Samsung SJ court. The same reasoning will overturn that verdict as well. (Apple didn't show they were damaged by Customers seeking out those specific patented features.)

Additionally those features represent a tiny fraction of the overall value of the phones.. (big hit to damages award),

I do not like Apple. Some people do though, so I would like them to survive.Competition is good.Apple just needs to fucking build shit for their fanboys and leave the rest of the world alone.

I have worked in the Telco industry for 10 years now and you can trust me when I say that Apple's move into mobile devices has been like an earthquake in a petrified landscape and it has had an effect way outside the Apple 'fanboy' community. Like Apple or hate them, the iPod, iPad and iPhone have all transformed their respective market segments (and heavily influenced Android). Nobody took tablets terribly seriously until the iPad, the iPod has revolutionised music players (I know that because I was in the

People don't always buy phones because of specific features any more - they buy it because of the brand and because it is the latest model from that brand. People will buy the Nexus instead of the Apple regardless of the specifics of its search functions.

Yes, but if this particular feature were left out, people would still buy it. The Appeals Court noted this clearly in their order:

The causal nexus requirement is not satisfied simply because removing an allegedly infringing component would leave a particular feature, application, or device less valued or inoperable. A laptop computer, for example, will not work (or work long enough) without a battery, cooling fan, or even the screws that may hold its frame together, and its value would be accordingly deprec

Which is exactly what the court said, wondering "...whether the patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant."

There's a difference between "You're infringing and will be punished" and "You're infringing and cannot sell the phone until we get this worked out". Blocking sales should be the nuclear option, only used in the most blatant violations of the most key features, which is what this judge is saying. Violating this patent to marginally improve the user experience on a device is not sufficient to run a company into the ground.

Nexus is very "Brandish" to those of us who buy based on "Nexus"Nexus means that I am dealing with an unlocked, root capable phone running base Android software.I like Nexus s. Some of them I might skip because of the manufacturer but I will not be buying another non Nexus phone.

> People don't always buy phones because of specific features any more

Actually, in some sense that is not true. When buying phones, it must be Android. That's what I'm looking for. I'll compare amongst Android phones for everything else, as you suggest. Brand. Features. Price. Size. Color. Style. Keyboard. Cameras.

But not running Android is a deal killer. I buy the phone because it runs Android. Because it syncs with Google services, runs Google maps, etc. I buy it because I can get s

And before an iFanboy complains, I would point out that they do the same. They buy the iDevice specifically because it is from Apple, runs iOS, is high priced, takes away their freedom, etc etc.

Why would they complain? Those are all perfectly valid positions to take. Your choice of platform and the criteria that are involved in its selection have nothing to do with anyone else - I just with that certain Android "fans" would appreciate that people who don't ultimately choose Android also have equally valid reasons and criteria.

I didn't go for an iPhone because it "is high priced, takes away their freedom, etc etc." - that's simply a nonsense statement. My iPhone (in fact, my last two iPhones) have

The unique "feature" of the Nexus line is that it is comprised of stock Android phones. The line is not unique to Samsung, as the first Nexus was built by HTC, Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus built by Samsung, Nexus 7 tablet built by Asus. It isn't brand specific...the line is developed by Google in conjuntion with the aformentioned manufacturers.
BTW, I have a Galaxy Nexus and brand had nothing to do with my purchase. I wanted a pure Android phone. Galaxy Nexus is one of the few phones recommended by the And

And this makes the case all the more intriguing. As the court pointed out, the feature in question (Quick Search Box) is a part of Android, not something provided specifically by Samsung, and it has existed for several years longer than this particular phone.

This is only true in case of Apple's customers. There is no such thing as "the last model" for pretty much any company, besides Apple, there is a bunch of different models with their own "latest": latest "Nexus", latest "Galaxy", latest "Note"...

They're overworked and understaffed and their directive seems to be "pass it unless there's an obvious an egregious problem and let the courts sort out anything else".

Well, the alternative is to re-create a new court within the Patent Office, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Making a judgment on whether something is patent-worthy is an inherently messy process, and making authoritative judgments about messy issues is what courts are for.

I just looked into the 604 patent some more, it was filed in 2004, but was rejected that year and another 8 times over the following years. It wasn't approved until 2011, yet it somehow still has an effective date of 2004.

So it's not that the USPTO grants every apple patent, it's just that if you submit the same patent 10 times over the span of 5 years, they will eventually approve it, even if they shouldn't.

Seriously? That is way messed up. I pay for that patent office with taxes, I assume. I don't like it that a company can spam them, essentially, with patent applications until they get one through (presumably had an inexperienced reviewer or something). Blech. And this isn't anti-Apple, this is anti-anyone-that-does-this:P

The USPTO is fully fee-funded, at no cost to the taxpayer (http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2011/kappos_house_2012budget.jsp).

Regarding multiple rejections, this is common in patent prosecution. A first Office Action is almost always Non-Final. Applicant has the opportunity to rebut the arguments of the examiner and/or file amendments to overcome the alleged prior art. If these arguments and/or amendments are not persuasive, or the examiner has new rejections (such as new prior art) necessitated by the am

Your taxes comment is fatuous. The running of the PTO is covered by fees. The OP's comment was not directed toward external costs.

What do you even mean by saying "the actual patent was only realized once all the examiner's objections were addressed?" The specification may not substantially change throughout prosecution; any changes to the content of the specification or claims that were not disclosed as of the filing date are considered new matter under 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph, and subject to a rejection

So can Samsung now ask for compensation for the lost sales due to the ban? (Honest question to any legal person here that might know. It seems obvious and only fair to me, but justice is seldomly fair lately).

So can Samsung now ask for compensation for the lost sales due to the ban? (Honest question to any legal person here that might know. It seems obvious and only fair to me, but justice is seldomly fair lately).

Apple was required to put up a bond before the injunction went into effect, for exactly this reason. That money is not going to be released to Samsung at this time, because the matter is not yet settled. This is a preliminary injunction on claims that have not yet gone to trial--it is not related to the recent verdict Apple won against Samsung.

I suppose they can sue the district court for abusing their discretion. But I dont think it has tried before, and I would expect the district court and the judges to have some immunity from prosecution.

So can Samsung now ask for compensation for the lost sales due to the ban? (Honest question to any legal person here that might know. It seems obvious and only fair to me, but justice is seldomly fair lately).

Yes, but it was only actually banned for a few days. The appeals court stayed the injunction shortly after it was granted.

A very good example of how our legal system would be improved by a 3-strikes rule.

If a court case is overturned on appeals, clearly, the lower court not only didn't do their job but in fact caused a 3-fold increase in the burden borne by the court system: the original court trial, the appellate hearing, and the subsequent case.

I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.

(If judges are particularly rare or dear, and we need them, implement some sort of "3rd strike = 25% pay cut for 1 year" rule to significantly punish these individuals that are so critical to our legal system.

Frequently overturned judicial rulings will hurt that judge's chances for advancement.. If a complaint is filed, the chief judge(for the district) will assign it to an appointed judicial committee for review.. That proceeding can result in private or public censure..

The Chief judge can also place that judge on low profile case list for an indefinite period.

A very good example of how our legal system would be improved by a 3-strikes rule.

If a court case is overturned on appeals, clearly, the lower court not only didn't do their job but in fact caused a 3-fold increase in the burden borne by the court system: the original court trial, the appellate hearing, and the subsequent case.

I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.

(If judges are particularly rare or dear, and we need them, implement some sort of "3rd strike = 25% pay cut for 1 year" rule to significantly punish these individuals that are so critical to our legal system.

Well I believe if a judge is wrong then he should get some sort of punishment. I mean for all we know he could have been paid big $$$$ to make rulings like this.

I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.

Because that's far too rigid. If the original case depended on a tricky point of an obscure law, it's quite possible for the trial judge to get it wrong in a subtle way. Or if there were two cases being brought at about the same time that tested a new law and two trials were decided in different directions based on different readings of the same law, that would require the superior court to describe which is actually correct. These are examples where counting them as "strikes against the judge" would be exc

We (who wanted to buy a Samsung product, but who were unable to because of the legal shenanigans of Apple Corp.) should file a class-action law suit against Apple, naming as a codefendant every employee of Apple, every Apple store, their lawyers, and so on, for statutory and punitive damages for presuming to restrict our freedoms laboring under the sadly mistaken assumption that we would buy Apple's products if there weren't an alternative.

Not just any old logical ruling, but I speculate it holds the seeds for slowing down patent madness. Borrowing from another of my posts elsewhere:

"It said the district court in California, which had issued the ban in June, had "abused its discretion in entering an injunction"."

Which, in Court Speak, is pretty bad. "Abused Discretion" is basically what we were all saying in Less-Safe-For-Work terms.

There's also an awesome phrase to keep an eye on. "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the â(TM)604 patentâ"not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."

So we have the BAREST beginnings of how to slow down patent abuse:1. SomePhone has "patented technology to play Angry Birds with live birds using geo-sensors and accelerometer tech in hunting season" or something. Let's even say something like that is innovating, and not obvious - shake your phone at a bird and it falls out of the sky!?

OtherCorp says that the tech infringes on their other patent which got there first, *and then tries to ban sales of the whole phone.*I think this court case is saying that the grumpy corp has to prove that consumers basically stood in the mall and picked which phone to buy based on exactly that tech and no more. "Hmm, this one has a better screen, better sound, better camera, better maps, better music interface, Android store." "Yeah, but mine kills pigeons in the park." "Ooh, I'm sold, I'll do that!"

Perhaps more interesting was the court's commentary on Apple's practice of using the courts to completely block competitors from the market, saying that it is necessary to determine if the claims of harm are relevant or "...whether the patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant." In other words, you may still be entitled to damages but you are not allowed to use one minor feature to completely eliminate your competition.

Ugh. Every time I see someone shove hash-tags in the middle of what they're saying, I can't help but feel like every time one comes up, it's as if the poster just stopped talking, knocked me to the ground, jumped up and down on my chest, and just started screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M PART OF A TRENDING TERM! EVERYONE LOOK AT ME RIGHT NOW!". For each tag.

If the tags are all put at the end of the post, that looks more like trash piling up in a lazy bachelor's apartment, but at least that doesn't

Remember when she asked the Apple lawyers if they were on crack? That seemed like an inciteful comment from her at the time, so now we are hearing more and more that she's mis-handled the case. All that money that's gotten wasted over this patent crap... Everytime I read about another twist in this ridiculous case, my head just shakes left and right several times. Such a complete waste of many resources all around. At least those poor lawyers won't go hungry.